subscribe_world_dirty

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the return shape (cursor plus events since since_seq), states that rewinding is free, and clarifies that it is the polling form of world://dirty notifications. It omits permission requirements and any volume/pagination limits, which prevents a top score for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb, then the return contract, then the usage qualifier — no filler. Some density-jargon ('world.dirty', 'the recipe moves') slightly raises parsing cost but is tied to the domain.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of explaining the return value and the push/poll split, which is what an agent needs to call it. It leaves open event volume, ordering guarantees, and whether a subscription persists server-side.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: since_seq is explained as the watermark for which dirty events are returned, and 'rewind is free' clarifies that a smaller or reset value is safe. It does not state the default of 0 or the units/ordering of seq, leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Subscribe to world.dirty') and immediately defines the payload: 'what changed in the world and when' plus the returned cursor {branch, head, seq}. It also distinguishes itself from the push mechanism it mirrors, so an agent knows this is the polling variant rather than a generic subscribe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says this is for 'clients that cannot' hold a subscription stream, so the when-to-use condition is stated alongside the alternative it replaces. It stops short of naming any peer tool in the sibling list or stating exclusions relative to them, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.